Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:09:18 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Daichi GOTO <daichi@ongs.co.jp> Subject: Re: fcntl always fails to delete lock file, and PID is always -6464 Message-ID: <AANLkTikyU=dLKLQTyMAomZNoSWUEbV9K3fFjpUEEYU3q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinPM3ShWiDWg-4o-aApMG9znG-DAOd8usbpyquR@mail.gmail.com> References: <20101004123725.65d09b9e.daichi@ongs.co.jp> <AANLkTinZg3n3wDUzQFPv_Gq1o2hswGL3%2B4o0brmTi0-h@mail.gmail.com> <20101004144927.36822f07.daichi@ongs.co.jp> <AANLkTimVcLVdULyAAJD-_TaC5OLj%2BaZVNa=%2BSaiN6PKv@mail.gmail.com> <20101005093826.17432b1e.daichi@ongs.co.jp> <AANLkTi=w5ZAfRymSYbL6X37uyYX17J2dW8LHVcPXZ_%2Bb@mail.gmail.com> <20101005153410.598e4484.daichi@ongs.co.jp> <AANLkTin=9MKZGf7RREfcReamdJpCQ56BMn_RKy8eOU0-@mail.gmail.com> <20101005175536.a67998ae.daichi@ongs.co.jp> <AANLkTine%2B7_vqNjS4ztu6tSVEqaWLEAu%2B9PS-07z26PU@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinPM3ShWiDWg-4o-aApMG9znG-DAOd8usbpyquR@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Daichi GOTO <daichi@ongs.co.jp> wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 01:23:02 -0700 >>> Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>> 2010/10/4 Daichi GOTO <daichi@ongs.co.jp>: >>>> > Thanks nice test tool :) And at last I got it excepting one mystery! >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 20:17:08 -0700 >>>> > Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>> >> Following through the same process on FreeBSD... >>>> >> >>>> >> Window 1: >>>> >> $ ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>> >> ls: /tmp/lockfile: No such file or directory >>>> >> $ ./test_fcntl >>>> >> >>>> >> Window 2: >>>> >> >>>> >> $ ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>> >> -rwsr-x--- 1 garrcoop wheel 0 Oct 4 20:14 /tmp/lockfile >>>> >> $ ./test_fcntl >>>> >> test_fcntl: fcntl: Resource temporarily unavailable >>>> > >>>> > Just my mystery is as follow: >>>> > >>>> > Windows 1: >>>> > % ./test_fcntl >>>> > My pid: 43490 >>>> > >>>> > Windows 2: >>>> > % ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>> > -r-sr-x--- 1 daichi wheel 0 10月 5 15:02 /tmp/lockfile <--- is it weird, isn't it? >>>> > % ./test_fcntl >>>> > test_fcntl: open: Permission denied >>>> > % >>>> > >>>> > Oops... What's wrong... /tmp is as follow: >>>> > >>>> > % mount | grep tmp >>>> > /dev/ada0s1f on /tmp (ufs, local, noatime, soft-updates) >>>> > % dumpfs /tmp | grep journal >>>> > flags soft-updates+journal >>>> > % >>>> > >>>> > And working scene: >>>> > >>>> > Windows 2: >>>> > % chmod u+w /tmp/lockfile >>>> > % ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>> > -rwsr-x--- 1 daichi wheel 0 10月 5 15:22 /tmp/lockfile >>>> > % ./test_fcntl >>>> > My pid: 43646 >>>> > test_fcntl: fcntl[1]: Resource temporarily unavailable >>>> > PID=43490 has the lock >>>> > % >>>> >>>> What's your umask and what are the permissions on /tmp? >>> >>> % ll / | grep tmp >>> drwxrwxrwt 14 root wheel 1024 10月 5 17:19 tmp >>> % umask >>> 022 >>> % rm -f test >>> % touch test >>> % ll | grep test >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 daichi wheel 0 10月 5 17:52 test >>> % >> >> The permissions look ok from my perspective, but the umask is >> different, so you might want to try my umask to make sure that your >> results match mine (and we need to check the requirements to determine >> whether or not the behavior for FreeBSD's umask syscall is correct): >> >> $ ls -la /tmp/ | head -n 2 >> total 462686 >> drwxrwxrwt 51 root wheel 11776 Oct 5 03:11 . >> $ umask >> 0022 >> >> Where and how is /tmp mounted (is it a real partition, what >> filesystem, etc)? >> BTW, when I change my umask to match your's I don't get the same >> results you do on my home machine: >> >> Window 1: >> >> $ umask 022 >> $ ./test_fcntl >> My pid: 17353 >> >> Window 2: >> >> $ ./test_fcntl >> My pid: 17356 >> test_fcntl: fcntl[1]: Resource temporarily unavailable >> PID=17353 has the lock >> $ ls -l /tmp/lockfile >> -rwSr----- 1 gcooper wheel 0 Oct 5 07:49 /tmp/lockfile >> >> Just to note, the tests before were run on the RHEL 4.8 box with >> the following info, and the FreeBSD box with the following info: >> >> Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 8) >> Linux sjc-lds-102 2.6.9-89.0.11.ELsmp #1 SMP Mon Aug 31 11:00:34 EDT >> 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >> >> FreeBSD bioshock.cisco.com 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #1 >> r211767M: Sat Aug 28 00:28:45 PDT 2010 >> garrcoop@bioshock.cisco.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BIOSHOCK amd64 >> >> The tests above were run on a FreeBSD box with the following info: >> >> FreeBSD bayonetta.local 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #9 r211309M: >> Thu Aug 19 22:50:36 PDT 2010 >> root@bayonetta.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BAYONETTA amd64 >> >> On bayonetta /tmp is SUJ backed (probably should change that >> though), and on bioshock it's not SUJ backed. > > And while this might be a good mental exercise, I think we're missing > the original point of your bug: > > You were getting ECONNREFUSED because a socket was in `use', even > though all instances of mozc_server were dead (at least that's the > case with me). So the question I guess that's worth asking is: Statement incorrect: socket wasn't in use. The logic needs to be rewritten to account for this case and setup the socket again if this occurs. It would be a good idea to do this if the file wasn't locked. > 1. What process/application does it need to establish a Unix style socket with? > 2. Why isn't that socket being cleaned up by the OS at exit? Thanks! -Garretthelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikyU=dLKLQTyMAomZNoSWUEbV9K3fFjpUEEYU3q>